You might find this article interesting as it covers the development and use of guns used for both offence and defence by RAF aircraft leading up to and during WWII, also for the various bombs and air to ground rockets used and the type of aircraft that used them.


https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/documen...al_weapons.pdf


Les

Good work gap :salute:

Aircraft an important factor in the game. Especially low flying that sweeps in over the Bay of Biscay which means that the M42 has to work a little harder ... and if the outcome is good, free beer will be served for dinner.

Thank you very much Les

indeed your article looks interesting. I already saved it on my HD and I will read it carefully :up:

@ kapuhy

A little addition to our discussion on British fighters in the anti-shipping/shipping protection role:

The Hurricane mark used by the squadron while in Edku was Mk IIC, a fighter-bomber variant armed with four 20 mm cannons and capable of carrying a 250 lb or 500 lb bomb.
According to Wikipedia: «By then [June 1941, when the Mark IIC entered service] performance was inferior to the latest German fighters, and the Hurricane changed to the ground-attack role, sometimes referred to as the Hurribomber. The mark also served as a night fighter and "intruder"».

Also interesting is the fact that, before and after its deployment in Idku, No 6 Squadron was flying another ground attack version of the Hurricane, the Mk IID:
«Mk IIs were used in ground support, where it was quickly learned that destroying German tanks was difficult; the cannons did not have the performance needed, while bombing the tanks was almost impossible. The solution was to equip the aircraft with a 40 mm cannon in a pod under each wing, reducing the other armament to a single Browning in each wing loaded with tracers for aiming purposes. The Hurricanes No. 6 Squadron, the first squadron equipped with this armament, were so effective that the squadron was nicknamed the "Flying Can Openers". A winged can-opener became an unofficial squadron emblem, and is painted on present-day aircraft of 6 Squadron».

So my doubt is, why diverting a squadron specialized in the ground-attack role from its regular duties and appointing it to the defense of convoys, if the main menace was air raids? Wouldn't they appoint a fighter squadron and equip it with interceptors, more adequate for this new role? My impression is that, in that case, No. 6 Squadron's Hurricanes were meant to contrast Italian torpedo boats that at the time were pestering Allied shipping in the Mediterranean. :hmmm:

:Kaleun_Cheers:

I think you are right. This period of time is right after Allies have retaken Tobruk and Benghazi in the wake of 2nd El Alamein battle, and the shipping No.6 Squadron was meant to protect was probably moving supplies along the coast from Port Said/Alexandria to retaken ports. I doubt they were under much threat from Axis air forces (which were probably in rather poor shape after major defeat, and with frontline moving west it lost closest airbases), so Italian light naval units must have been main problem.

But fighters patrolling close to the coast, strafing or even bombing anything that tries to engage coastal sea traffic (including surfaced U-Boats if they happen to spot one), is not what I have problem with. It's the notion of planes like Hurricane, Spitfire or Mustang flying out several hundred kilometers (or miles? I'm not entirely sure what units are used for MaxRadius= in cfg files) hunting for enemy ships over open sea. This I doubt ever happened - but that's kinda how these planes are currently configured and I think an effort to accurately model air traffic in SH5 should include correcting this.

Edit: also, if this map (showing combat radius of various fighters) is accurate, than fighter ranges in SH5 seem to be overestimated (Spitfire for example has MaxRadius=680, even if these are indeed kilometers it's still 422 miles)

Exactly my point :up:

I definitely agree with you. Imo the ahistorical usage of fighters in game comes from two factors: misinterpretation of the max radius setting and lack of aircraft in game. See my thoughts below for more.

Nice graph!

In order to simulate in game fairly realistic aircraft ranges, we must take into account three important factors:

• Aircraft MaxRadius setting. To the best of my understanding, this is likely to translate in game the combat radius in kilometers, i.e. «the maximum distance a warplane can travel from its base of operations, accomplish some objective, and return to its original airfield with minimal reserves»*. This is a somehow aleatory variable though, because it might depend on the duration of the mission that must be accomplished, on the speed and altitude maintained during the mission itself, and on the weight of the armament carried (heavier ordnance implying lesser extra fuel reserves and increased fuels consumption). Interestingly, the aircraft range most commonly reported in warplanes' specs is either the combat range, i.e. «the maximum range the aircraft can fly when carrying ordnance» (that should be roughly two times the combat radius) or the maximal total range i.e. the «maximum distance an aircraft can fly between takeoff and landing, as limited by fuel capacity in powered aircraft»*. The combat range of WWII fighters is not always declared. Inferring it - and thus the combat radius - from maximum range is a matter of speculation, but I believe that a 0.4 to 0.5 ratio would be a decent approximation.
  

  * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_(aeronautics)
  

• Aircraft variant. Some long-lived WWII fighters, like the Hurricane, had many incarantions whose performances improved almost constantly. Having just one variant modelled in game which will spawn throughout the whole campaign, might lead to gross under/over estimations of aircraft range, speed and firepower.
  
  
• SH map projection. From my remarks above, we might get that MaxRadius = 1/2 Combat Range ≈ 1/4 to 1/5 Maximal Range. Unfortunately things are not that easy. In real world, one degree of latitude measures about 111 km. This is also the approximate length of one degree of longitude at the Equator but, due to the fact that meridians are converging, this distance decreases as we move from the Equator to the Poles where it is equal to 0. Coversely, in the SH world one degree of latitude/longitude will always measure exactly 120 km, no matter where we are on the map. This fact implies that, near the Equator, distances on the SH5 map are 108% bigger than real world ones, and the discrepancy gets much worser at higher latitudes where most of the campaign takes place.

All in all, I think that the best method for addressing the above shortcomings, would be having several proxy clones for each aircraft variant modelled in game, and setting their MaxRadius property according to the duties that, in real WWII warfare, those planes accomplished in each theater. In theory, we should have one aircraft clone with customized range (and armament) for each air group using it, but in practice several squadrons/air groups with similar deployment and missions would share the same aircraft "clone".

Talking more specifically about fighters, the plan I have in mind is as follows:

• Home defense interceptors / night fighters: only the fighter squadrons which are known to have been based near a port should be added to the game, and the radius of their aircraft should be just long enough to cover the air space above that port. No need to simulate inland squadrons, or squadrons whose base was located in areas of little interest for the game.
  
  
• Fighters and fighter-bombers defending coastal shipping: these are a bit trickier to be simulated; the circular range of action of airbase-spawned aircraft would involve that, rather than sticking to coastal areas, they would sweep in all the directions, also moving toward the open sea. Moreover, if the player is spotted within their range, there is a chance that they are called in for an ASW attack, decreasing the chance that better suited and more historically correct planes spawn instead. Maybe, if there are not too many of these "coastal patrol fighter squadrons", scripting them rather than adding them to airbases would be a better idea.
  
  
• Offensive long range fighters, either intruders or, later in the war, bomber escorts: my idea is definitely to script them where/when appropriate. In this category should also fall fighter squadrons that are known to have played a role in one-time historical events (like Dunkirk evacuation, D-day landings, etc.).

I hope I didn't forget anything. Probably yes, but we will discover it as I proceed with my analysis of RAF squadrons. :salute:

Friends I need your help again. This time it is not a question about game settings, but rather a question relative to military history.

Based on information on RAF squadrons I have gathered so far, I am setting up some new airbases with their own air groups. My goal is to reproduce as closely as possible WWII RAF order of battle where it had an influence on naval warfare.

Real airbase locations and real aircraft types for each base, with realistic combat ranges and plausible armaments are in my mind, all of the above factors evolving over time according to historical records.
Attaining that level of accuracy requires an hard work, and some simplifications are going to be needed for accommodating it within the limited resources of our game and of our computers, but even so, I think that the result might be worth the effort.

Now I am looking for information on the typical composition of a RAF squadron (for different Commands and at various stages of the war) in terms of Flights and aircrews/aircraft. Do you have any numbers that you can offer me or can you point me to some source where I can get the said information?

Hi Gap, Here's a link to a Map of all RAF bases used during WWII and which Squadrons used them.


https://www.rotary-ribi.org/clubs/pa...446&ClubID=460




and Here's an index of all RAF squadrons and aircraft used during WWII.


http://www.historyofwar.org/subject_RAF_units.html




Fighter Squdrons normaly comprised of 12 Aircraft, Bomber Squadrons varied in size a lot in the early years there were 6-8 aircraft per Flight with normaly 2 Flights per squadron giving 12-16 aircraft, from 1943 on there were normaly 12 aircraft per Flight and 3 Flights per squadron, as for Costal Command (the Cinderella Command) there were no fixed amount of aircraft per squadron just what was availble




Les

Wow, that's a nice map, thank you Les!

I am slowly building a similar map on Google Earth; hopefully I will manage making a good selection for our game, else we will have more airbases than ports lol :D

Here's what I learned about airbases and planes in SH5...

I'll test this and let you know...

I never saw such behavior in SH5. Spawned group of airplanes is always made of one plane type...If that's what you meant?

I don't think so, only nighttime modifier from airstrike.cfg which effects SH5 globally.

I was wondering the same. My guess is yes, but it's only a guess...

Hm, that's an interesting one...:hmmm: In theory this should work just like normal AC.

However, It's important to note that when TDW patches for AC are activated, AC will indeed spawn aircrafts when you are detected but the planes will simply roll of the deck and fall in the water...
Regardless, AC will still regularly spawn planes even without TDW patches enabled but only while outside of players 3D rendering range (40 km by default), just like "moving" airbase. :yep:

There is also one more very important and ugly bug about airbases in SH5.
Inactive bases will spawn planes even before airbase activation date if there's axis threat zone up to XXX miles away (in addition to sea traffic avoidance,opposite threat zones are used as a patrol zones for planes as well )! For example, Airbase in Azores, which should become active in 1943 IIRC, will spawn planes even in Happy times campaign as well, well before airbase activation date. If such planes enter players 3D rendering range the game will most likelly CTD and if saved before that, the save will become corrupted.

There were a lot of these conflicts in the original OHII files but I managed to solved them somehow in Wolves...

Thank you Vecko, I was waiting for you to give your contribution to this thread, and now I know that my wait was worth all the knowledge you had to share on the topic :salute:

Yes please! I would test that myself but at present I have not the game installed on my computer...

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. In other words, the only way to simulate bomber raids with fighter escorts, is by scripting them, isn't it?

That's a real pity, but I am afraid we will have to live with it...

According to propbeanie, whose bigger experience is relative to SHIV, yes they take the veterancy level of their parent unit (no matter whether it is an airbase or a carrier), and airplanes lesser than 'elite' or whatever is the highest veterancy level, have the bad tendency to stall and fall down. Can you confirm that the former statement also applies to SH5?

That would be really cool, but again, according to propbeanie it won't work in SHIV. There is only a little chance that it will in SH5, but worth a test anyway :)

mmm... that's weird. I am pretty sure the same TDW had tested that patch before releasing it. I remember that from the discussion we had back then. Maybe some other mod/patch is messing with that feature, or it will only work under certain circumstances. I wonder whether carrier (=aircraft?) vetrancy level or IRAI version might have anything to do with that... :hmmm:

That's probably the most important piece of information of your last reply, I am really admired by your patience in tracking down all these bugs! :up:

In other words - correct me if I am wrong - that means that air groups must cover without gaps the whole campaign duration, otherwise some buggy planes will spawn and the game will crash as soon as they enter rendering radius, right?

If so, a possible workaround might be filling the empty gaps before, after and in between "offensive" air groups with "filler" air groups equipped with one or more unharmed planes, like a transport, a trainer, a liaison aircraft, a scout or something along these lines. Even better, we could assign to those airgroups just one customized aircraft with a very short max radius, so that it will hardly cross our routes :hmm2:

I think so, yes...



Not really...SH5 airplanes are equally incompetent on all veterancy levels...:)



I'm pretty much sure that it can be done, why not? Even fishing boat can be made as AC, 3D model is quite irrelevant IMO. It's only a matter of CFG file and unit type...



I may do one more test since I already have one mission wit AC in it but I'm not very optimistic...


I'll take Azores AB again as an example. This airbase since it's active from 1943 (TP campaign) shouldn't be present in campaign files from TG, HT, WA and other campaign chapters prior the TP...And in TP campaign it should be active right from the campaign start...





That wouldn't be a safe solution IMO. It will cause problems sooner or later...


I don't remember all the trick I did to bypass these problems, it was several months ago, but I do remember that I had to carefully inspect all airbase layers from all the campaigns and set them accordingly. I also remember that I had to create new (clone) airbases in Final years campaign because of this but I dont remember exactly why...:hmmm::D


You can download the archive and inspect the files for your self if you like, it can be opened with winrar or 7zip...:yep:

It seems that airplane radars can detect AI units without problems. They managed to attack and sink German freighter in the middle of the night and in extreme weather conditions with visibility no more than 300m and I set their WP significantly off course... :yep:


But I just couldn't make TDW patches for AC to work again from some reason. :hmmm:

...and I can confirm that regular catapult ship can be cloned to AC and it may launch airplane, outside of 3D rendering area of course...:yep: We dont have in SH5 appropriate plane type for this purpose though.


EDIT:


This plane I mean...


https://i.postimg.cc/DwMzmyR7/SH5-Im...5-23-14-21.jpg

So I thought lol :rotfl2:

Sure, but my idea was to keep the original unit types for correct ship usage within generic traffic. I don't think that air groups will be on any use in the .cfg file of a battleship, cruiser or merchant -type ship, but probably non one has tested that in SH5...

Wait, now that you to rethink about it, I seem to remember that for that patch to work correctly carriers needed an extra bone to be used as spawning point for their aircraft, but don't quote me on that. It has been a long time since I had that conversation with TDW, but the discussion should be somewhere in TDW's patcher's thread :hmmm:

That is reasonable anyway, there would be no point in having that base in early campaigns (thus increasing loading times and memory usage), if it won't be active.

Why? Due to the way I want to set up airbases (according to their real usage by squadrons whose duty was relevant to naval warfare) there might be several gaps between an air group and the next one. Going by your experience, those gaps might cause problems similar to airbases whose first air group is inactive early on. My idea is to fill those gaps with "filler air groups". They would be identical to regular air groups except for the fact that they would include a small number of unharmed aircraft with a very limited range. I don't see why they should cause problems...

Yes, I would like to study your files, where can I download the zip version of TWoS? :)

That's good news :yeah:

Among the other things, that means that we can get Tempest fighters equipped with air-to-air radar to intercept and destroy V-1 flying bombs in late '44 :D

For that to work, TDW's "dogfight" patch should be enabled. Do you have any experience with that?

BTW, I think you should equip your air raid sirens with radar for them to work at night as well as during daytime.

Please read my comment on this subject in the post below

Did you set that CAM ship as a carrier?
If possible I would prefer not messing with ship types. CAM and MAC ships can be set as escort carriers with little consequences on generic traffic composition, as far as they are given historically plausible start end dates, but scout plane-equipped battleships and cruisers spawning in place of carriers woudn't be right :yep:

Aircraft units and 3D models are the least problem. We cam extract that biplane from the ship unit and make it in an air unit or, if need be, we can create a more detailed 3D model for the same use :03:

I tried with two types only, maybe some other AC type is capable of planes spawning by default...I'll test this when I have time...:hmmm:



You were talking about airbase cfg file?? Aaaah ok then...Sry:up: IIRC everything will be OK until we don't have inactive airbase in our current campaign due to not yet reached or passed activation date...


In my signature

Dogfights look a bit silly but they work more or less OK in general. Can't be compared with DCS or Il-2 AI dogfights though...:)


Good idea, although they already have reflectors but with radar, sirens will start somewhat earlier I guess...I'll add them.


Yes, it would be tricky definitively...I'd have to specify the exact ship classes in all taskforce layers for all campaigns although with N++ notepad it wouldn't be so complicated and time consuming...

Accorting to propbeanie, in SHIV all the carrier/escort carrier unit types are able to spawn aircraft. Hopefully this is also the case for SH5.


Do you mean that gaps between an air group and the next one are not problematic?

For example:

BTW, I have noticed that in OHII (as I said, I right now I can't check stock game) there is always a day of difference between the end of an air group and the beginning of the next one, whereas I would have expected them to use the same date. According to your experience, is that the correct way to set up two consecutive air groups, i.e. without end/start dates overlapping?

:up:

Indeed they are. SH aircraft AI is barely able to carry out attacks on naval targets, I would have been surprised if they could perform complex dogfight maneuvers, yet a poor fighter response against port bombing raids would be much more realistic than no response at all :up:

:up:.

It is not only the fact that editing taskforce layers would be a tedious work, but also that generic entries add a nice randomness to the game.

On a side note, I have checked the Wikepedia article on CAM ships, and it states that those vessels were armed with a single 'Hurricat' fighter. The biplane in your screenshot is definitely not a navalized Hurricane, so either the modder who created that ship equipped her with the plane that looked more plausible to him ignoring the real historic armament, or Wikipedia is wrong and more than one aircraft type could be launched by those catapults :salute:

The plane in this picture is Walrus scout plane which we certainly do have in SH5 (though, as per gap's comment, it should be really switched to Sea Hurricane which we fortunately also have).

EDIT: Walrus on CAM ship is set as equipment (from Flieger.dat file), replacing it with Hurricane would just require cloning Flieger.dat and replacing model in cloned file.

EDIT 2: Catapult would require changing too if we are to be 101% correct, it was copied from a warship model apparently and is correct for float planes, but Hurricane-launching CAM ships didn't have a crane attached to their catapults (there's no point as you wouldn't be able to reuse ditched Hurricane anyway)

Well spotted kapuhy. A series of pictures in the Wikipedia article I mentioned yesterday clearly shows the craneless catapult and the Hurricane on top of it:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...pult_c1941.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...n_CAM_Ship.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ship_c1941.jpg

If I can add something, I think that being requisitioned/MoWT vessels, MAC ships would have been painted overall gray. I am sorry to say that because I like more black hulled ships, but in this case I am afraid that the black paint is totally out of place...

One more note: if set in game as escort carriers, CAM ships will fly the white ensign. Nonetheless the red ensign would be more adequate for them, as in reality they were commanded by a civil shipmaster*. I think that a switch of flag can be done by changing the flg node into an eqp node, and by specifying the red ensign in ship's .eqp file.
_________

* There was another class of catapult-armed ships designed collectively as 'Pagasus-class' which, similar to CAM ships, could launch an Hurricane or a Fulmar but - unlike CAM ships - they were manned by military crew and officers. For this class, composed of only five vessels, the RN ensign would be okay.